John 12.1-8
5th Sunday in Lent - Year C

SOURCES OF THE TEXT

The anointing of Jesus occurs in all four gospels: Mt
26:6-13; Mk 14:3-9; Lk 7:36-50; Jn 12:1-8. However, the differences in these
stories suggest at least two different sources; and their placements within the
narrative indicates some editorial freedom.

Brown (John, Anchor Bible) gives the following table
of details [with some of my additions]. Most of the details in Mt & Mk are
similar so he only uses Mk in the chart.

Mark
14:3-9

John
12:1-8

Luke
7:36-38

2
days before Passover

6 days
before Passover

during
the ministry

[after
"Palm Sunday"]

[just
before "Palm Sunday"]

house
of Simon

not
specified, [but

house of
Simon

(leper)

Lazarus,
Martha & Mary

(Pharisee)

are
present]

unnamed
woman

Mary of
Bethany

sinner
woman

with
alabaster jar

with a
pound

with
alabaster jar

valuable
perfume

expensive
perfume

perfume

made
from real nard

made
from real nard

weeps on
feet

dries
them with hair

kisses
his feet

pours
perfume on head

anoints feet

anoints feet

dries
them with hair

some
(disciples) angry

Judas
angry

Jesus
criticizes Simon

[insertion
about Judas

(v.
44ff.)

keeping
the common

purse]

more
than 300 denarii

300
denarii

Jesus
defends woman

Jesus
defends Mary

Jesus
forgives woman

(v. 50)

"Leave
her alone"

"Leave
her alone"

"Keep
perfume for burial

"Poor
always with you"

"Poor
always with you"

["Not
always have me"]

["Not
always have me"]

"Has
anointed for burial"

"To
be told in whole world"

Brown, quoting other sources, suggests two basic incidents
behind these scenes: (1) An incident in Galilee at the house of a Pharisee: A
penitent sinner enters and weeps in Jesus' presence. Her tears fall on his feet,
and she hastily wipes them away with her hair. The (scandalous) action of
loosening the hair in public fits the character of the woman and helps to
explain the Pharisee's indignation. This is the backbone of Luke's narrative.
(2) An incident at Bethany at the house of Simon the leper where a woman, as an
expression of her love for Jesus, uses her expensive perfume to anoint Jesus'
head. Mark (and Matthew) closely follow this account.

John uses the second account, but incorporates details from
the first account and adds some of his own -- such as the presence of Lazarus,
Martha, and Mary; and the comments about Judas.

This incorporation leads to a strange combination of
anointing Jesus' feet with the perfume and then wiping it off with her hair. I
don't believe that perfume -- especially expensive stuff -- would be immediately
wiped off. As we shall see later, I think that these actions have a symbolic
meaning.

It is likely that John intends this narrative to be connected
to the raising of Lazarus which is reported in the previous chapter. In fact,
the events of our text are briefly described in 11:2 -- before they happen. Our
text is sandwiched between statements about killing Jesus (11:53), and Lazarus
(12:10).

Koester (Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel): "In
this context it would appear that Mary's action was a gesture of gratitude for
bringing her brother back to life." [p. 112]

Only John has the anointing immediately preceding Jesus'
entrance into Jerusalem (12:12-19), where Jesus is hailed as "King of
Israel (vv. 13, 15). This suggests that one interpretation of our text is that
it is the anointing of a king -- although kings were anointed on their heads,
not their feet.

FOOT WASHING

Koester offers a number of comments about foot washing in the
first century.

People generally washed and anointed their own feet. Foot
washing was a routine matter of cleanliness, and the use of oil or ointment
on one's feet was soothing for those shod in sandals. When guests arrived at
someone's home, especially after a journey, the host usually provided a
basin and water for the guests to wash their own feet before sharing the
meal. In the Scriptures, for example, Abraham welcomed visitors to his tent
by saying, "Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest
yourselves under the tree" (Gen 18:4). The same practice is attested in
other biblical texts and Greco-Roman sources. In some cases, a host might
also provide oil for his guests, although they would ordinarily rub it onto
their feet themselves.

A slave was virtually the only one who could be expected
to wash and anoint the feet of another person....washing or anointing the
feet of another person remained identified with slavery.

Because of these connotations, those who voluntarily
washed someone else's feet showed they were devoted enough to act as that
person's slave....

The act of anointing Jesus' feet, when taken in its
literary and cultural context, displays Mary's utter devotion to Jesus
following the resuscitation of her brother. Other elements of the action are
consistent with this. The ointment she used was very expensive.... Since
there is no indication that Mary belonged to one of the wealthier classes --
the meal was served by Martha rather than a servant -- the ointment was
apparently a major expenditure. It was also significant that Mary wiped
Jesus' feet with her hair, since well-kept hair contributed to a person's
dignity in the ancient world. Women took pride in long hair, which was
considered attractive, and damage to one's hair was considered degrading. By
using her hair to wipe the feet of Jesus, Mary heightened the sense of
self-effacement already reflected in her willingness to serve him as a
slave. [pp. 112-114]

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ABOUT JOHN'S TEXT

Only John specifies that Jesus had come for a
"dinner" (deipnon, v. 2). The other three uses of this word all
refer to the upper room meal (13:2, 4; 21:20).

The word for "being (or reclining) at table" (anakeimai,
v. 2) is also used of the posture in the upper room (13:23, 28), and of the
feeding of the 5000 (6:11). Reclining to eat indicates a festive banquet. It
also makes it feasible for Mary to anoint his feet -- they were not underneath
the table as would be typical of our eating posture -- sitting on chairs at the
table.

The word for "wipe" (or "wipe dry" -- ekmasso)
is also used by John in the upper room. Jesus washes feet and "wipes them
dry" with a towel (13:5). As I mentioned above, if the ointment was rubbed
on to provide a pleasing aroma, e.g., applying perfume, it makes no sense to
wipe it off -- except as a connecting word to Jesus' actions in the upper room.
The same word is used in Luke's account, but the "sinful" woman is
"wiping off" her tears, not perfume (Lk 7:38, 44).

We are told that the house was filled with the fragrance of
the ointment (v. 3). This may be presented in contrast to the four-day stench of
Lazarus' tomb (11:39). Brown (John, Anchor Bible) quotes Midrash Rabbah
on Eccles 7:1: "The fragrance of a good perfume spreads from the bedroom to
the dining room; so does a good name spread from one end of the world to the
other." [p. 453]

He suggests that if this understanding of perfume was known
at the time of John, he may be symbolically saying the same thing as Mark, who
indicates that the woman's deed will be proclaimed in the whole world in
remembrance of her (Mk 14:9). The "fragrance" of her good deed will be
spread throughout the world.

I've already noted a number of connections between our text
and the upper room events. Perhaps a key to understanding our text is what Jesus
tells the disciples after he washes their feet: "For I have set you an
example, that you also should do as I have done to you" [13:15].

Mary is the model disciple. She "follows" his
example -- albeit, prior to the example. She does what Jesus will do -- washing
and drying feet. Note that this word for "anoint" (aleipho) is
sometimes combined with washing (see Mt 6:17, also Ruth 3:3).

If Mary is the model disciple, then Judas is presented as her
contrast. Mary is generous. If the ointment were worth 300 denarii, that is
roughly equivalent to a year's salary. (1 denarius was about one day's pay.)
Judas is greedy -- taking what doesn't even belong to him. Mary illustrates her
faith with actions. Judas talks piously -- "giving to the
poor" -- but we know that he is not sincere. Both "prepare" Jesus
for burial -- she by the "anointing" and he by the betrayal.

O'Day (John, New Interpreter's Bible) highlights this
contrast:

Mary's act of discipleship is brought out even more
strongly in the contrast with Judas in this scene. Judas does not respond to
the impingement of Jesus' hour with an act of love for Jesus, but with
self-centered disdain. Judas's response leads to the destruction of the
flock, whereas Mary's actions model the life of love that should
characterize Jesus' sheep (p. 703]

Her reference about "the destruction of the flock"
comes from ch. 10, where all the other occurrences of "thief" (kleptes)
in John are found (vv. 1, 8, 10; and the verbal form in v. 10).

Verse 7 poses some translation and interpretation
difficulties.

Brown (John, Anchor Bible) points out the difficulty:

If John meant that Mary was to keep some of the perfume
for the future embalming of Jesus, we would expect to hear of this later. We
do not; Mary of Bethany has no role in the burial preparation of Jesus'
body; and indeed the extraordinary amount (about 100 lbs) of burial spices
brought by Nicodemus (29:39) would seem to exclude any significant role that
the few remaining drops of Mary's pound of perfume might have. [p. 449]

O'Day (John, New Interpreter's Bible) writes:

The grammar of the Greek text of v. 7 is difficult. Verse
7b begins with an elliptical purpose clause (lit., "in order that [hina]
she might keep it"). The NRSV resolves the difficulty by supplying the
verb phrase "she bought it," but these words are not in the Greek
text and their addition limits the scope of Jesus' response. The NIV comes
closer to the meaning of the Greek text because it emphasizes the centrality
of the purpose clause. Two other instances of a hina purpose clause
without a clear protasis clarify the meaning of Jesus' words here. At both
9:3 and 11:4, an elliptical hina purpose clause is used to announce
the purpose of Jesus' revelatory acts. here, the same construction is used
to announce the revelatory significance of Mary's act. The anointing
in Mark 14 is the only anointing Jesus' body receives for its burial, but in
John, there will be another anointing at the time of Jesus' burial
(19:38-42). the significance of Mary's act is that it anticipates that final
anointing. Jesus' words in v. 7 thus interpret Mary's act as confirming the
impending arrival of his hour. [p. 702]

Again, like with the "foot washing," Mary
pre-figures what will happen later in John's narrative. Jesus' body will be
anointed for burial.

Brown (John, Anchor Bible) offers these observations:

Mary's action constituted an anointing of Jesus' body for
burial, and thus unconsciously she performed a prophetic action. And indeed
this may explain why the rather implausible detail of the anointing of the feet
was kept in the Johannine narrative -- one does not anoint the feet of a
living person, but one might anoint the feet of a corpse as part of the
ritual of preparing the whole body for burial. [p. 454]

I'm not sure what to make of the "poor" in John.
Apparently some ancient writers weren't too sure about v. 8 either. It is
omitted in some manuscripts. The "poor" are not mentioned much in
John. Besides the three occurrences in our text (vv. 5, 6, 8), the only other
occurrence is in the upper room when the disciples misunderstand Jesus' word to
Judas, "Do quickly what you are going to do." Some think that it
refers to giving to the poor (13:29).

This verse (8), harkens back to Dt 15:11: "Since there
will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you,
"Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land."

Haenchen (John, Hermenia) writes on this verse:

Joachim Jeremias thinks the story of the anointing is
comprehensible only on the basis of the Palestinian distinction between
almsgiving and acts of charity. A gift of money to the poor would be
almsgiving; the burial of the dead would be a special act of charity,
considered higher and more valuable. [p. 85]

Haenchen does not see this as an important distinction in the
story, but I think that it is worth knowing. All of us are frequently confronted
with the dilemma of choosing between two or more good deeds, e.g., with a
limited amount of benevolent dollars, where does one offer it where it might do
the most good.

Final comment from O'Day:

...if in the raising of Lazarus, Jesus is fully revealed,
then in Mary's anointing of Jesus, faithful discipleship is fully revealed.
Mary's act of anointing illustrates the Evangelist's eschatological vision
of the new life to be lived by those who embrace Jesus' life and death and
become children of God (1:12; 11:53). [p. 703]